The Tea Party Can't Save Us until It Saves Itself First

To believe that the Tea Party will face the most important issues of our time and systematically find solutions to them is to believe in fairy tales. And that assumes that we could somehow agree as to what the most important issues of our times are!

I first became introduced to the Tea Party on April 15, 2009 when a group identifying themselves as "Taxed Enough Already" held a demonstration at my City Hall. I could not help but note that they were upset about President Obama's tax policies even though (1) Obama had been in office less than three months and (2) about 95% of taxpayers would pay less than or the same amount of taxes than before Obama.

That summer, I went to a meeting composed mostly of those with people aligned with the Tea Party and listened to their thoughts. They deplored Obama for raising the debt and the deficit and judged his use of "czars" in his administration as unconstitutional along with other policies. Though President Bush, Obama's predecessor, also raised the debt and the deficit and used czars himself, I started to sense some of the Tea Party policies and what they wanted.

They appear to want fiscal responsibility, a "return" to following the Constitution and a desire to take "their" nation back.

Will these ideas "save" or improve our nation? No. While they may get Tea Party politicians elected, they are not enough to help our nation. The reason is simple: the ideas are vague enough to appeal to the electorate, but not specific enough to help our leaders make decisions that need to be made.

First of all, no one disagrees with fiscal responsibility. So, even those with whom the Tea Party members say they disagree with, like Obama, share the same vague idea of taxing and spending in a reasonable manner. And I do say tax and spend, for all governments have the responsibility of taxing their people and using the funds to spend on the people's behalf. When there is no disagreement, there is no debate.

The Tea Party should tell us how they are really different than Obama, the Democrats and the traditional Republican Party. As they have already expressed general disdain for taxes, they should explain what part of the budget they would cut, as Bill Maher implored a Tea Party member to do recently on "Real Time." If they want to cut entitlements, then who specifically will get Social Security, Medicare, etc. and who will be removed from these programs? They won't tell us the answers to these questions because they can count the votes they would lose as well as anyone.

Second, the idea of a "return" to the Constitution suggests that there is only one way to interpret it. But if that is true, why have there been so many 5-4 decisions on the United States Supreme Court? And why have old decisions, like Plessy v. Ferguson, been overturned by more recent decisions that have affirmed rights that had been rejected?

If the Tea Party means a "strict" view of the Constitution, they may have some explaining to do. This school of thought says that courts should not go beyond the words of the Constitution to make decisions. But this way of thinking runs into trouble when one considers that the "Exclusionary Rule" (which forbids illegally seized evidence from being introduced in criminal court against a defendant) does not appear in the Constitution at all. Neither does "filibuster" or the "Miranda Rule."

The Tea Party should tell us how they believe specific parts of the Constitution should be understood instead of implying that they have a monopoly on its interpretation. Of course, if they don't like the Miranda warning being given to criminal suspects, they lose voters who can recite the warning much more easily than they can recite the Pledge of Allegiance!

And lastly, talk of taking a nation back simply begs the question of whose nation we live in. Are any of us better than anyone else?

If the insinuation is that the United States is a "Christian nation," the Tea Party had better re-think its message about following the Constitution, which forbids religion as a test for public office and which forbids the establishment of any religion!

The Tea Party should talk about goals common to all of us and invite debate as to the best ways to reach these goals. They should show the courage of convictions by saying specifically what they want. And they should risk losing votes in the process.

In doing so, they may not save this nation, but they could find a way to get people from other voting groups to take them seriously, which would strengthen the debate for better policy.

All too often, those pushing for changes in immigration policy have complained that Congress has not done its job by enacting meaningful reform.But if people just want to say “Deport them all” without offering a solution as to how to keep them from getting here or for identifying them or for adjusting to an economy that no longer includes them, why should Congress listen?

We can do better.We need only remember that a good discussion in not a one-way street.There are reasonable questions we can ask and there are answers to these questions.

First, we should identify the problem(s) we have with illegal immigration.I frequently hear that illegal immigrants use taxpayer money and contribute to overpopulation.Others say that they take jobs that people here legally could have and contribute to a decrease in wages.

Second, we should consider the benefits of illegal immigration.Some say they perform jobs (like picking grapes in triple-digit heat) that no one here legally would do.They also accept less pay for their work than others and in doing so they keep prices of many products down.

We must also ask ourselves whether we have truly identified the entire problem.Discussion of this issue usually focuses upon those who immigrate from south of our border.But studies have shown that about 30 percent of illegal immigrants come from elsewhere.Will our new policy on immigration pay much attention to those from Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, etc.?

At this point, we should weigh the difference that changes in the law or the enforcement of the law would make as compared to the current situation.

For example, if successful enforcement of illegal immigration policies (i.e. few illegal immigrants around) means we pay twice as much for certain grocery items, we pay more at restaurants and wait longer for medical care, will we still support it?

Also, to what extent are we willing to change laws to obtain successful enforcement?If it means building a huge wall between us and Mexico, or allowing state officials to approach people based on the color of their skin to inquire about documentation status or allowing Homeland Security agents to raid businesses without cause, will we still support it?

And we should acknowledge the consequences of keeping the policy the same, or of repeating the 1986 “reform” which had the effect of granting amnesty to millions of people here illegally.That law was supposed to take care of this problem.If we try amnesty again, or even grant immigrants a path to citizenship, how can we be certain we will not continue to grant amnesty?

There are many sides to this debate and it may take time to hammer out a law that addresses the most important concerns. The bottom line to better debate is this: if you have a complaint, provide a solution.Tell us you understand the consequences and are prepared to live with them.By doing so, you will have taken our society a long way toward becoming a fair and just place to live.